Monday, February 20, 2017

I was
trying to prepare a blog post on some of the latest statements from the
President which I believe are contributing to further divide the country and accelerate
further the dysfunction of the government.

I was going
to comment on the President’s statement that, “We lived in a divided nation. And I
am going to try -- I will do everything within my power to fix that. . .”

And also his comment about, “I
just see many, many untruthful things. And I tell you what else I see. I
see tone. You know the word “tone.” The tone is such hatred. . .”

And
then, of course, I couldn’t pass over the latest comments about the press: “I want to see an honest press. . . it’s so important to the
public to get an honest press. . .” And, the follow-up in a tweet: “The FAKE NEWS media (failing @nytimes,
@NBCNews,
@ABC,
@CBS,
@CNN)
is not my enemy, it is the enemy of the American People!” And, the Fox News
endorsement, “.
. .and I have to say “Fox & Friends” in the morning, they're very honorable
people.”

I
have tried in previous posts to identify and explain some of the critical
elements of our broken government and some ways to address or suggest possible
solutions to those issues.

I
have also tried, even considering the fact that I am biased, to identify the
fact that both Democrats and Republicans are contributing to the broken,
dysfunctional government and both play the silly “gridlock games.”

However,
the events of the last several weeks and the current level of discourse on
politics and the state of the American democracy has been revealing to me.

There
I pointed out that sometimes the fix is not immediate and you must be careful what you wish for and deal with the
consequences. I said:

“So, what's the goal? What's the end game to fixing a
broken, rigged government? It's to make the politicians listen and do what the
majority wants -- Right? Well, before we go too far we should have a little
discussion about -- "Being careful what you wish for."

“We have to do a little self examination here. You see, we
already have a system that is "rigged" -- where majoritydoesn'trule. So, what we're seeking is a
"majority rule" system. Okay, so what if the majority doesn't agree
with you personally? Are you ready to suck it up and live with the
"majority rule"?

“You see, that's the hard part. . . at any given point in
time. . . sometimes, the majority opinion won't necessarily agree with
yours. So what are you going to do? Now what's wrong with the system? You want
a system that always delivers the result you want? Sorry, that's not the way it
works.

“So, here's the caveat -- over time, the majority system
corrects itself. At least it corrects itself to the majority at that time.
Sometimes the majority gets fooled or needs to experience a certain policy
or ideology. Then, if the vision does not turn into reality, the majority corrects
itself by changing direction. You have to trust the majority system. And, if
you can't live with majority rule then you should probably seek another
alternative, somewhere else.”

My post on “what do we really want” and
comment above, written before the November election basically assumed that the
person who would win the Electoral College vote would also win the popular
vote. As we know now that was not the case and the loser actually received 2.8
million votes more than the winner. Although I disagree with the Electoral
College process, it was the legal and known process for last November’s
election and I accept that.

But, my point is still the same. “Sometimes the majority [or Electoral
College results] gets fooled or needs to experience a certain policy or
ideology. Then, if the vision does not turn into reality, the majority corrects
itself by changing direction.”

For me, that’s where we are right now. We are waiting to
see if this new President’s vision, and the vision of those who voted for him,
will turn into reality. If not, the ingrained structure of our democracy which
binds us all together will correct itself and we will change direction.

And so it goes. We are in a period of blurred vision,
waiting for clarity. We’ll see (pun intended).

In the meantime I’m reminded of my Grandmother’s old saying
many years ago when I was a young man – “Give them enough rope and they’ll hang
themselves.” That works for me. Spring is in the air and I’m thinking about
going fishing.

Thursday, February 9, 2017

Note: The Plaid Zebra is an unconventional
lifestyle magazine that aims at broadening the horizons of potential lifestyle
choices and uplifting the autonomous with inspiration and example.

[Excerpt] An America divided.

Although I didn’t grow up in Virginia, I’ve been
visiting since I was a child and attended Virginia Tech for college. This state
is a prime example of the rural/urban divide witnessed across the country.
Locals understand the stark contrast between the more liberal and urban,
northern Virginia – known as NoVA – and the more conservative and rural,
southern Virginia – known as the “real” Virginia. As a user on
Reddit pointed
out: “I was taking classes over the summer in Blacksburg, and this guy asked me where I was
from. I replied Northern Virginia. He referred
to people there as Communist pricks…Well, that escalated pretty quickly.”. . .

On the way home, I sympathetically examined the
rolling hills of Rocky Mount,
Virginia and I tried to make
sense of it all. The relationship between God, country and guns no longer sits
well in my heart as it once did when I was a little girl. How could a community
that evoked the name of Jesus in prayer – a divinity I always believed promoted
peace over violence – do so minutes before bidding on guns? Machines built to
kill. How could a community similar to the one I hail from, embrace a man like
Trump, and all that he represents?. . .

Comment by J.P. McJefferson:

Nice
article Victoria.
Can't believe there's only one comment. You have really captured the same
feelings I'm having of late. I too have friends and family on both sides of the
divide. And you have correctly identified the elephant in the room -- guns. So
long as the direct popular vote doesn’t count (which it doesn’t under the
Electoral College system) and until Democrats understand guns and the gun
culture, they may never win another Presidential election. All you have to do
is look at the last election results, i.e. red v. blue by counties

and you will see the urban rural split amplified. It troubles
me that there can be so much hate and vitriol between the two sides. Is this
what it was like at the dawn of the Civil War where over 600,000 Americans died
killing each other. Democrats, even with the backing of 80-90% of the
electorate on background checks, have never been able to deliver a credible,
believable or incontestable message on guns – that is, a message that
Republicans and rural America
could buy. There’s always the argument that ANY regulation or control will lead
to another, and another, and another, etc. and NO incident, however horrific,
can justify regulation or control. The NRA, for decades, and now Donald Trump,
of recent, have tapped into the rural America gun culture and it will be
exceedingly difficult, going forward, for any Democrat to ever win their trust.

P.S. For
the record I have lots of guns myself: a 410 shotgun; a 22 pistol; a 22 rifle;
a 38 revolver; another older revolver; and an old Indian trade musket.

FOLLOW-UP UPDATESAnalysis | Gun ownership used to be bipartisan. Not anymore. wapo.st/2peJqlG?tid=ss…, The Washington Post, By Mark Joslyn and Don Haider-MarkelMay 9, 2017America’s Complex Relationship With Guns, An in-depth look at the attitudes and experiences of U.S. adults, June 22, 2017, Pew Research Center. https://goo.gl/tH7aSJ

Wednesday, February 1, 2017

Here
I go again trying to defend the concept of true bipartisanship and ways
to achieve it. I scratch my near bald head, watch the political shenanigans in
amazement and am at a loss for words to describe the avalanche of governance
garbage that is filling the space of our daily lives. "How can this be
happening?" I ask. And then I answer, "It's so obvious. Why can't we
get this right and move on?

An
article, by David Frum,"How to Build an Autocracy", in
the March 2017 issue of The Atlantic is enlightening and caught my attention
when it talked about the power of Fox News to the typical Republican
member of Congress and its ability boost or crush a Member's popularity with
their constituency. That power has recently been increased big time with the recent
Presidential endorsements.

E.G.
1/24/17 Tweet: "Congratulations to @FoxNews for being number one in
inauguration ratings. They were many times higher than FAKE NEWS @CNN - public
is smart!" And about his recent CIA speech, Trump said, "That speech
was a home run. That speech, if you look at Fox, OK, I'll mention you -- we see
what Fox said. They said it was one of the great speeches." He told ABC's
David Muir, "Turn on Fox and see how it [CIA speech] was covered."

The
end point of the discussion was that "oversight of Trump by the Republican
congressional majority will very likely be cautious, conditional, and limited."
This is a screaming red flag on the breakdown of governance and the
Constitutional system of checks and balances that is supposed to protect us
from an over zealous Executive branch.

The
article rightly points out that, "As politics has become polarized,
Congress has increasingly become a check only on presidents of the opposite
party. Recent presidents enjoying a same-party majority in Congress—Barack
Obama in 2009 and 2010, George W. Bush from 2003 through 2006—usually got their
way."

Also
discussed in the article is the incredible power of social media. Frum, in a
hypothetical projection envisions, "social media circulate ever-wilder
rumors. Some people believe them; others don’t. It’s hard work to ascertain
what is true." Additionally, we have all been treated to the barrage of
tweets from our new President and his self-proclaimed ability to speak truthfully
and directly to the "people" and bypass the filter (i.e. fact
checker) of the "mainstream media" which his Administration
calls the "opposition party” which should "keep its mouth
shut."

We
must also not forget the enormous power that goes with the Presidency, i.e.
control of all agencies including the FBI and CIA and other intelligence
bodies. That power could be misused as it has been in the past to "harass
political dissenters and activists, to amass secret files on political leaders,
and to collect evidence using illegal methods."

So,
the Founders, in all their brilliance (and they were unbelievably brilliant)
did not foresee the power of Fox News, social media and the high tech
capabilities of intelligence gathering by those with nefarious or malicious
intent. These factors have and could have a profound disruptive influence on
the system of checks and balance they wove into the Constitution to keep the
Executive branch in check.

Now
back to the dead horse -- bipartisanship. By not engaging in true
bipartisanship in governing, Congress relinquishes a considerable portion of its
power over the Executive branch. True bipartisanship is not easy, and as I have
said in previous posts, it runs counter to the DNA of most politicians, but it
is the key to restoring Congress as the strongest branch of government as the
Founders intended. It is also the key to ending gridlock, making Congress
functional again, and elevating its approval ratings in the eyes of the public.

True bipartisanship begins
with a basic recognition that you cannot govern an equally, ideologically
divided nation with all of the power on one side. It is a recipe for disaster
which is exactly what we have now under the existing power distribution scheme.
It is why Congressional approval ratings generally range between 10%-20%. It is
why Congress, by demonstrating its gross incompetence, has ceded nearly all of
its power to the Executive branch. While Republicans currently have the power,
my position and argument applies to both parties, no matter who has the power
at any given time. Both parties share equally in their responsibility for
Congressional gridlock.

As
I have tried to explain in previous postings, true
bipartisanship beginning with shared power in the committee and
subcommittees system of the House and Senate could completely alter the
legislative process dynamics, reduce the incentive for gridlock games and
political posturing, maximize and focus staff resources and blunt the affect of
excessive lobbying and financial influence.

As
atypical as the concept of shared power in Congress is, it is not without
precedent. The House and Senate Ethics Committees operate and function with the
concept of shared power where there is equal party membership on the committees
and the staff is nonpartisan and prohibited from engaging in
any partisan political activity by Congressional rules.

Imagine legislative proposals for immigration
reform, infrastructure development, health care and a host of other critical
issues arriving on the House or Senate floor after being developed through a
shared power committee structure.

The process would force bipartisanship at the
beginning of the process. Imagine, at the subcommittee level where Members with
specific knowledge of the subject matter from both sides of aisle each present
their proposals for addressing the issue. They would most likely be markedly
different. They would have to argue and debate, have hearings with experts and
testimony equally from both sides, utilize unbiased staff resources to
investigate and develop suggestions and finally craft a compromise. The process
would be somewhat like the Conference Committee process where competing
differences between House and Senate bills are resolved; however, it would be
much more thorough, comprehensive and nonpartisan.

The compromise would have to achieve a
majority vote of the subcommittee and move on to the full committee where it
would again be debated, subjected to hearings, further scrutiny and finally a
majority vote of the full committee.

As the legislation reached the House or Senate
floor there would still be plenty of opportunity for dissent, as it is unlikely
that proposal would achieve unanimous consent. Amendments and debate on those
amendments would be expected and more conventional political maneuvering would
likely occur where the majority party would obviously have the upper hand.
However, legislation developed through this process would be much more credible
and would have true bipartisan roots and support from Members from both sides
with skin in the game.

Similarly, as with legislative development,
the idea of shared committee power with nonpartisan staff would vastly improve
the other major responsibility of Congress – Executive branch oversight. No
longer would oversight be limited to just presidents and agencies of the opposite
party; partisan
witch hunts and character assassinations would likely be eliminated and
effective review of agency programs, budgets and actions would be more
normalized.

As
indicated above, true bipartisanship would not be easy and is counter to the
excessively polarized and partisan political environment that exists
inside the Beltway. But, if Congress does not change its ways we are doomed
with gridlock, ever increasing Executive branch power and the frightening
future predicted in David Frum's article, "How to Build an
Autocracy."

If
Congress does not change its own ways (which is highly unlikely), the now
completely scattered public pressure from interest groups and public
demonstrations should be coordinated and focused on what I have called the Achilles'
heel, the linchpin of Congressional dysfunction – the broken committee and
subcommittee process.